| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#112
June 30th 04, 12:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
In article , (Weiner
von Brawn, hero of space) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/28/2004 7:47 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Tomorrow, a lunar orbiter discovers what appears to be deposits of "X". We need "X" really bad, and we know if we don't have a quonset hut sitting on it, it's fair game. The moon has been under such observation for almost 40 years. Nothing of that sort of value has been found. And tommorow an orbiter scanning FOR "X" shows up, Jim... Maybe that 1/1000 chance that we see something from "just the right angle" happens... Weiner been reading "X Men" comics again? :-) OK...four years. That's a completely different game. You just doubled the available time. And it's still four yeas less than the "usual" development time for aviation projects (The F22's been in the works for a decade already and is just now about readu to start manufacture). Tell us all about Weiner's aeronautic work. Easy to do with one word. :-) Weiner spent time at Edwards or Nellis? Go zoom-zoom in sky? Or just go zoom-zoom with imagination? The Harrier has been "operational" for three decades with USMC. Highest flight failure rates of any US military aircraft. But, it does insure a capability of commissioned officer advancement...through pilot attrition. Again...IF we wanted to get it now "now", I think we could do it. The Ariane would have to put the tanks into an orbit that the shuttle could reach easily. And a docking system that would make fuel and oxidizer connections would have to be developed to make the hookup. That's a new technology right there. Why? What do we not already know about fuel line connections that we don't already know? What other magic is there to getting a fuel from one tank into another? The Russians were doing it for over a decade with MIR. We all know what happened to MIR. :-) The Saturn V was designed to be a one-booster-lifts all flight. Yep. Because after looking at all the alternatives, that was the best way to go. That was the best way to go THEN. Weiner on decision board THEN? NOW? Don't think so. Yep. But you need at least one new technology, and at least two carefully-timed launches. Can be done but it's harder and more costly. We know exactly where the moon's going to be for the next 2000 years. We can, with a handheld science calculator, do almost the same thing for earth launches. It IS "rocket science", but one that's been thoroughly developed and proven. It's a wheel that doesn't require re-invention. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Ritta mistake. Launching requires "insertion" between existing satellites and assorted space junk. Those satellites and junk aren't a constant for very long. Certainly not for a decade let alone millenia. The launch "window" referred to so glibly by TV "science commentators" is governed by a launch trajectory missing all those other objects in orbit. There isn't a pocket calculator built anywhere, not a palm pilot or similar that can hold all that information and then calculate it. The political ramifications of a military (USAF) lunar mission would be a big problem. How many civilians have walked on the moon, Jim? The very first one was. :-) And what makes you think that NASA may not have already penciled this mission out? Nobody says they haven't. But that's a long way from doing it. You HAVE told me of reasons why you think it won't work one certain way, Jim, but you've NOT shown me or caused me to believe it CAN'T be done under ANY circumstances. Weiner, us readers know YOU can't be persuaded anywhichway, not by us, not by DoD, and certainly not by NASA. :-) You're changing the boundary conditions, Steve. And you ignore basic physics. I am not ignoring any physics, Jim. You don't mention any...:-) All you have is Will and Idea. Right - after decades of continuous development and upgrades, the range has been increased. And by eliminating features and making seats smaller, more people have been crammed aboard. Yes, seats can be made smaller... But the aircraft is 40% larger today than it was in 1969. Strange. I had a flight on a Continental Airlines Boeing 707 in 1958. Had another flight on a 707 around 1992. Didn't notice any aircraft size expansion at all. Seemed the same. Sunnuvagun! Maybe Boeing fed them some kind of aluminum hormone in the last dozen years? Must be... :-) Better engines are one big reason. Those engines weren't a result of the space or military programs. They were the result of companies like GE working to sell civilian aircraft engines. If they could show enough fuel saving with a new design, the airlines would buy the new engines. Hmmmmmmm.... "...compnies like GE..." Now..I WONDER who it was that made (or were major contractors on) the engines that presently put the shuttle in orbit, as well as about every other rocket or aeronautical project since the 30's...?!?! The F-1 engines (five) on the Apollo mission Saturn first stage were designed and built by Rocketdyne Division of North American Aviation...which, after purchase by Rockwell International, became (on legal paper) Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International. Rocketdyne has since been purchased by Boeing Aircraft Company. The SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) is used in a triad on the shuttle itself. SSME is designed and built by Rocketdyne. The SRBs (solid rocket booster) are reuseable only if they don't suffer damage on return to Earth. Rocketdyne doesn't build the SRBs which are only good for about a minute of the seven-plus long launch phase. Sunnuvagun! How about that? :-) Ya think they learned anything in the process...?!?! I certainly do. Did what? Learn something? I doubt that. Weiner go to any rocket test firings? Michoud? Santa Su? Cape? Not likely. Weiner gets his PhuD dissertation from cadging used copies of AW&ST. :-) And that's only from actually building the things...The engineering could be done now in CAD with a minimum of expense. Not true. CADD helps but you still need to build the thing. Eventually, but not like we used to. The F-22 and the Boeing 777 were both aircraft that were CAD'd right into a first flying prototype. CADD = Computer Aided Design and DRAFTING. Weiner, you have NEVER "bent tin" (worked with sheet metal) or "laid lead" (did drawings on paper) in any aerospace company. You don't know squat about "configuration management" (the big buzzword for "drawing control" of the last 3 decades). Weiner, you have NEVER checked drawings in any aero company, let alone an electronics one, and have NEVER signed the "approved" block on any paper or mylar drawings. Don't give us this song and dance about "CAD right into the first flying prototype." The CADD is PRINCIPALLY DONE TO REDUCE THE ENORMOUS QUANTITY OF DRAWINGS that pile up to make all the parts. A sidelight is that, by using IT skills, the CADD can be configured to do "fit" tests on major assemblies for the physical assembly of a craft. Boeing proved that with the triple-seven, made it a holy thing in their documentary film for PR purposes. The F-17 Nighthawk, then the B-2, were first modeled with CAD, just the DESIGN part, in order to get the best compromise planform for minimal RF reflection and for minimal IR radiation. CADD entered later when the final planform was solidified. The man-hours cost for the CAD (just the Design part) was staggering because it took a long time to get close to optimum. You're forgetting the physics again. No. I'm not. That may be true. One can't forget what one hasn't learned. :-) We can't park "re-supply" ships along the way or in lunar orbit? Do you know what a Lagrange point is? Sure I do. Then you should know that you can't "park" ships along the way to the moon. No, but you CAN park them in Earth orbit or you can park them in lunar orbit. Weiner von Brawn, explain "Lagrange Point" to the studio audience. Use only one solar system pair for simplicity, give numbers. Explain "space parking." Synchronous orbit only synchronous in terms of observer on object being orbited...thing in orbit is still going around and around and around...like nursie faking knowledge. The only practical point would be lunar orbit. Now, how would you get a supply container there? The same way we got RANGER, "Lunar Orbiter", Apollo and who knows how manyn other lunar exploration packages there. Big one-use rockets. Atlas was a "big one-use rocket"...?!?! Absolutely. Convair designed it as an ICBM lifter. A weapons platform first...then a THROWAWAY sat launch vehicle. Atlas had thin skin. Nursie have thin skin. Nursie = Atlas? CM/LM rendevous was done after TLI and after LM ascension in lunar orbit. Both waaaaaaay outside Earth orbit! Sure. But the initial move wasn't really a rendezvous - it was just the CSM separating, turning around, docking and pulling the LM out. The only really tricky rendezvous was when the LM came back up from the lunar surface to meet the CSM. How tricky, Jim? In one case (TLI) only one of the craft was under manned control. In the case of CSM/LM rendevous, there were two craft under manned control. Starting with Gemini-Agena up trough Shuttle-ISS, don't you think we've gotten the technique pretty well down pat...??? Only basic principles. That's not enough for "all." Get with it. Add "zero g fuel tank connection system" How did the Russians "refuel" MIR for oover a decade? Swap out propane tanks at the convienience store? Weiner tell studio audience how that was done? Weiner big guru in space, knowitall, been there, but got no T-shirts. Apollo took only about 8 years. With slide rules. And an enormous price tag. Becasue we'd never done it before. Now it's software you can download in a couple minutes. Weiner tell studio audience links to software sites? MSN? Adobe? Which ftp site, Weiner? Give details. No shooting from lip. Well there's the rub. Again, "how much money" as opposed to the logistics of getting it done. I included the logistics. The logisitics is the money! Weiner show pie chart to studio audience? Explain where costs go? Weiner only make big log as part of icy BM, not do for real... Anybody who was in their 30s when Apollo was active is now retirement age. Or dead. What? NASA didn't keep any archives? These guys "learned" all that stuff then kept it to themselves? Technologies change with time, acquisition of new data on physics of solar system (mascons, etc.), requirements of manufacturing, trying to push "performance envelope." NASA have plenty archives. Found in "configuration management" warehouses. :-) NASA do many boo-boos in later years. See Challenger and ice, freezing of SRB assembly O-rings, blow-through. See Columbia and plastic foam used to prevent ice build-up, come loose like done before, make hole in wing. O-ring problem, main tank foam fall-off in archives, was ignored. Tsk. I am in Huntsville at least once a month. "Aerospace" is the "big business", but all those other countless places are needed to support the PEOPLE in "aerospace". (The 99% who get stuff done, and the 1% [ie:Lennie] who go along for the ride and milk it for what they can...But they ALL make money and spend money) Only because the money is imported from elsewhere. Uh huh. Why Weiner von Brawn in Huntsville, AL? Do consulting? On what? Why LPN go to rocket town? Put band-aids on fool tanks? Nursie make big brag. It COULD have been done 30+ years ago but "we" were too cheap to open our wallets then to avoid the costs today. We not have Weiner von Brawn, expert on space, to tell us how. :-) What we HAD under Carter were stifling inflation. Science and industry MOVED under Reagan. Not a boast on my part...archived historical facts. Archived political party SPIN! :-) And NASA is manhandling those school board members to the ground and stealing the money from them? Only under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton...they make "hostile actions" orders for murine corpse do school board fights. :-) Why can't the USA have the best educational systems in the world? The best surface transportation systems? The best energy systems? Energy independence? Money. Exactly. It gets spent on giving congresscritters joyrides and in replacing destroyed orbiters. We'll spend more money trying to defeat gay marriage than what replacing Columbia and Challenger would cost. Besides...we HAVEN'T replaced them...Challenger splashed 18 years ago now. Where's IT'S replacement...?!?!? Endeavor, first flight in 1992. We could have done all of those things 30 or more years ago (or at least been positioned to be there by now...) but everything was "fine" then, so why spend the money...?!?! Everything wasn't fine then. I agree. That's why I put it in " " brackets. It WAS a problem then. It's a worse one now. We not have Weiner von Brawn as guru 30 years ago. Now we have nursieland spaced-out guru mumbling in ham radio news- grope about spaceflight. :-) And I bet with some simple programming we can defeat jamming of our commercial satellites... Not against RF overload. That would take a system capable of putting a massive amount of RF across an extremely wide range of frequencies for a significant amount of time, Jim. Like from 400MHZ to over 5GHZ. THAT would be expensive, and would NOT be the kind of technology you could load into a Ryder truck. Nursie study solar flare characteristics, effects of EMP nuke, get back to us. Nursie then study REAL band space of comm sats and maximum power input values, do math for RF path loss, find narrow beam antenna gain and power needed from terrestrial location. Nursie have little calculator? Slide rule? [can do with slide rule] What nursie come up with? Why is it OK to buy consumer goods from China but not rockets? Because I am not worried about the Red Chinese using the technology used to make rubber duckies and t-shirts to overwhem us. Nursie tawk baby tawk with "rubber duckies" gonna "overwhem" us? :-) Nursie get newer copies of Time, see China now have equivalent astronauts and launch vehicles. In all the papers... Other people dream of doing great things. Engineers do them. Engieneers do them when adequately funded! "Engieneers?" They use "engien values" in math? :-) DaVinci dreamed of a great many things that have only been made practical in the last 100 years...Because we spent the money on research to develop the materials to let the enginees make it happen! Now we be "enginees?" :-) Nursie show us "practical" model of SCREW DRIVE helicopter? DaVinci show drawing of same. We not do dat yet. You're still avoiding that simple question.... I am not "avoiding" anything Jim. I point blank said earlier that I didn't have all the answers. No? Not all answers? Looks to readers like Weiner have all answers for everything. Just have Republican in White House and solve all problems! :-) I just know that we are NOT doing ANYthing to move the program forward today. What "program," nursie? Magellan "nothing?" Nursie and shrink go to JPL and discuss. Get shrink rapped and both go in fruitcake display. They prove the technology is no damn good. It's a spectrum polluter. It's just plain stupid. They proved that THIS method is a spectrum polluter. Can there NEVER be a development that might work? Nursie need look at latest ARRL Comment on 04-37. Open-wire electric power line using only ONE phase as distribution line WILL BE A SPECTRUM POLLUTER REGARDLESS OF MODULATION TYPE. Nursie fruitcake with morse nuts. No think. LHA / WMD |
|
#113
June 30th 04, 02:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: In the 50's and 60's we didn't have the technology. (to send people to the moon) We barely had the technology to get to the moon in the 70s. Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there about a decade earlier. History has shown us that most major "jumps" in technology and society happen in the wake of war. Some jumps, yes, but I don't know about "most". In many cases those "jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in peacetime. Or they're the result of government programs that are done to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy. In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits. RECENT history has shown that we made some pretty significant strides based on the Apollo program alone. Such as? Tang and Teflon existed before NASA. Ahh, but can you say the same for Tang flavored Teflon? Heh heh heh. Kind of slides right off the taste buds, don't it? No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have to be reinvented. Couldn't build more Saturns, as the tooling is gone, as well as the supply path. Configuration Management still has the drawings. "Tooling" is largely jigs and fixtures which aren't on the scale of Jo-blocks. Test data still exists. The VAB and Mover still exist at the Cape, now modified for STS. "We can unmodify it...we have the technology..." :-) I wouldn't say reinvented, but it would need to be re-done. I suspect that a new moon mission would be much much different. I would guess in-orbit assembly for the propulsion system, possibly the ship. Not as logical as the sci-fi writers think. There's a large fuel cost in leaving the gravity well of Earth for an orbit. Easier to make it as a whole and have all parts go up together. For in-orbit assembly one needs to put the assemblers in-orbit first. For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask WHERE in space are you going to spend that money? We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people here. And address problems long-term. Well, that leaves the field wide open. Some would have us believe that we would be better to spend the money feeding the world's poor. Of course, then you end up with a lot of fat poor people that will continue eating your food until you run out, then you can starve along with 'em! 8^) Put the money into investment trusts to promote McDonalds or KFC? A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of technical advencement. Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!" As opposed to the "Don't tax but spend like a drunken sailor" other types? Please, no insults at the USN, the super chief is monitoring... Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of government spending". It was in the Nixon/Ford years that the big NASA cutbacks took place. Too much money, they said. There was supposed to be an Apollo 18 lunar mission - it was cut and the Saturn V for it became a museum piece. Literally. We found out we could make more money selling our hats to each other.... for a little while anyhoo. Not quite. The "hats" are largely the backwards baseball caps of the last decade. My hat is off to you for making that comment, though... :-) But, siriusly, the politicians cut the tail off of Apollo during Nixon's first term. An appeasement of the Republicans was the exchange of the last flights of Apollo for the prototype space station called Skylab (1973-1974) and the first try at an "international" thing with Apollo-Soyuz of 1975. Much publicity and NASA supplied school information on Apollo-Soyuz here but the Cold War was still on and the USSR was going their own way. [I was at MSFC in 1974, just before Easter...the control room was modifying a few things for the Apollo-Soyuz link even then, Skylab ending] All of NASA's manned budget went into the shuttle, which is a marvelous system with a 1 in 75 chance of complete mission failure. The number of shuttles lost compared to the number of missions flown verifies the reliability analysis. Quite true but there was a large hiatus (at least four years) of manned spaceflight before any serious money went to shuttle. Any significant amounts spent were done by prospective contractors, eventually won by Rockwell...and then for the air- drop-only Enterprise (never space-fitted) shuttle vehicle. The reason the USA made the big space commitments was because JFK and LBJ (guess what party) pushed for them. They were essentially done to compete with the Soviets for the "high ground" of space. Recall that practically all of the important early space firsts (first earth satellite, first animal in space, first human in space and in orbit, first woman in space, first mission to another heavenly body, first pictures of the far side of the Moon...) were done by the Soviet Union. And most of their early accomplishments were complete surprises in the West. The USA played catch-up for years. JFK and LBJ knew that if the Rooskies could orbit a man and bring him back safely, doing the same with a nuclear weapon would be a piece of cake for them. I know I'm in my post field day weird move, but I wonder which country posted the first bowel movement in space? The one with the icy BM, of course... :-) Today there is no such need or competition. Just wait 5 years. For what? The cost was staggering but they had the political clout to do it. They could sell it to everyone on the national security agenda. And it didn't hurt that a lot of the money was spent in states like LBJ's own Texas. (Why is the control center for manned flights in Houston when the launch facility is in Florida?) The weather being better? :-) Actually, as a CONTROL center for anything that orbits people, the MSFC would ideally be in the midwest or mountain regions as getting the communications relay connections. Of the late 1960s, that is. That it went to Texas IS a favor to LBJ at the time. Billions were spent on the space program in the '60s but when Americans needed quality fuel-efficient cars in the '70s they had to go to Germany and Japan for them. I think the recent events in the Mojave also show that a bit of entrepenurial spirit and investment can go a long way. As exciting as that effort is, all of it was done more than 35 years ago with the X-15. But that X-15 took a monumental effort and support structure. Nope. Nowhere on the scale of say, Mercury. The X-15 development was done by North American Aviation (later to be bought by Rockwell). X-15 was and is an AIR vehicle flying out of Edwards. That is the take away I get from the SpaceShipOne effort. By comparison, the Rutan effort is almost easy. Did you see the pix of the technicians working on the plane? Jeans, T-Shirts and sneakers, and done in a workshop, not a humongous facility with cleanrooms and scary nasty chemicals sitting around. then they push it out of the "garage" hook it up to the White Knight and off they go. Sorry, but that's exaggeration. The first dozen-plus flights of the X-15 were done from half a hangar at Edwards with some testing at a nearby engine test stand...lifted by a modified B-52 (which later lifted lots and lots of odd aircraft, especially the "lifting bodies" that were prototype re-entry vehicles). B-52 was handy and available, already had a big hard point for hanging air-drop things. "High-tech-space" it was NOT in appearance. SpaceShipOne can no more reach space than the X-15 or the X-1 before it. It MUST have an airborne launch vehicle. Since few B-52s are sold surplus to prize contesters, Scaled Composites at Kern County Airport #7 designed and built their own. [that's called "Mojave" as a familiar name, is a common place for avionics flight testing by many for decades, located just north of Edwards AFB] [some call it "Mojave International" for fun but it is really a "surplus" WW2 air training base and does have long runways which look good for auto commercials on TV] Despite the goal, I don't see the real lesson as getting to space, but the way they are doing it. "Getting into space" via either X-15 or SSOne is barely making it. Topping the stratosphere isn't in the low-earth-orbit category and way away from geosynchronous orbit. Edwards was into many different "X" planes from during WW2 on through now, a very long time doing many different things, only a few of which were "space" related. Edwards had some rocket- assisted F-104s, too, for astronaut training in rocket-thruster control almost to space, but there isn't much PR on that. NAA made sure it got PR for the X-15 to gain visibility for future aircraft contracts, etc. All the aircraft makers were, those that are left still do. Edwards had a couple B-52s for various air-drop projects (one still remains, maybe) and there's no problem on getting crews for that support or the tracking and guidance and telemetry. But, man-rated NASA spaceflight clean-room humongous working areas it no had like you said. Open-hangar environment for ground work beginning shortly after Oh-dark-thirty, lift off ground at crack of doom and get up there before the desert air gets too bumpy from heat. Few air tests go past 10 AM. Gotta be "morning person" to sustain work at Edwards Flight Test Center. Those in the hangar are mostly civilians in common airport work clothes, few company insignia. Scaled Composites, I think at the NE corner of "Mojave," has about the same size facilities as Edwards had during X-15 times. Since they are also in the high desert, air flights are for early morning. A half-century of time hasn't changed much and the "used airplane lot" somewhat close to SSOne's home is still there, still as large. The civilian flight test companies gather at the SW corner of "Mojave," all in "hangar environments" to do avionics systems flight testing...chaff dispensers were big customers when I was there, using the south-of-Edwards China Lake Research Center as radar checker. Most of the upper desert is Restricted Airspace, so it is a good area for these "X" things of unknown safety. And it was done without government funding. So why do we need NASA for manned flights at all? Let the private folks do it on a self-funded basis. So why not Mars? Because the cost and risk is simply too much for the benefits. Do you have any idea what a mission to Mars would require in terms of how big and complex the ship(s) would have to be, how long they'd be gone, and how completely on their own they would be? Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon. Apollo missions were no more than two weeks, Mars missions would be over a year long. The Martian surface is in some ways more hostile than the lunar surface and the landing physics much more difficult (Martian gravity is stronger). Look how many unmanned Mars missions have failed completely. Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars.... What benefits would a manned mission to Mars give that could not be had any other way? Ahh, now we are getting close to what I think you are trying to say. As much as I enjoy the martian rovers, and as excited as I get about their discoveries, and in general, all the wonderful things that we get from the unmanned side of space exploration, if the basic purpose isn't to put people somewhere - I don't support it. Okay, so do your "DXpeditions" and re-pioneer radio until 2050. :-) The "basic purpose" of exploring the New World back in the 1400s was to GET GOLD, GET GOODIES...for the folks back in Yurp. That included what would eventually become the USA. GPSS is expressly designed for "putting people somewhere" but is very unmanned. A whole two dozen obiters, in fact. You support? They don't take people...people have to take themselves. AND, as we see from Hubble, they aren't taking care of the toys we are giving them now. I not see much Earth photos from Hubble space telescope. Plenty other sats to photo Earth. First Hubble was big screw-up in main scope optics, courtesy ground test crew. Hubble not there to "put people anyplace." The Hubble deserves to live out it's full lifetime. At the end of it's useful life, it should be visited by a shuttle, packed up, and returned to earth to take an honored place in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum. Getting to see THAT would give me goosebumps and get me all excited. And what's more, it helps cement my support for all of this. The people at NASA should be concerned that ubergeeks like me don't support them at this time. ? Why not be "mailgeek" and support Hubble through congress- person? Would do more. Mike support Access BPL by not saying anything against BPL to FCC? Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take the risks and send it into space. It got there - it had problems. We considered it important enough to go back into space and repair it. That was a technological triumph by the way. It turned that ugly duckling into a a beautiful swan of optical imaging. Should have been "beautiful swan" first time around. Wasn't. Big screw-up on ground by optical people on calibration. Tsk. We felt it was important enough to send servicing missions to. DESIGNED INTO Hubble from word go on contract. Nobody knew what effects space would have on all the different imaging systems in Hubble...had to plan ahead. Service missions NOT any kind of afterthought. Now "we" don't any more. At one time, we were going to retrieve it, but now it is too "dangerous" to even do a maintenance run on it. My how we have changed. We aren't inspired. We demand that our explorers have the same safety factor as our automobiles. We are now pussies. Mike send Weiner von Brawn to rescue. He fix! :-) If they told me that a servicing or retrieval mission to the shuttle wouldn't take place unless I was on board, I'd be on my way down there right now. Mike have mega-dollar insurance premium check? :-) Ride in space not ride in park. And how much all of it would cost? I think there is a psychological and social cost to *not* do it. Why not research stations on the Moon? How much are *you* willing to pay for them in tax dollars? That's really the bottom line. People are all for space exploration and such until the bills for it show up. Unless you want to ressurect the "world is flat" or the "we never went to the Moon" conspiracies, what other legit reasons can you think of to NOT do it? Simple: The costs outweigh the benefits. There are easier, cheaper, faster ways to get the benefits and solve the problems we have on earth. Actually, I don't think there is a way to solve those problems. Give up? No solution? Say not so! Space and war may help with some things but they are horribly inefficient means of progress. None of this means we shouldn't go into space, just that we need to do so in a way that is balanced with other needs and programs. Ahh, but whose balance, Jim? I think that humankind badly NEEDS the sense of exploration and adventure and the frontier effect of space. My price tag of balance is a lot higher than yours, which is in turn a lot higher than a lot of other people's If we're not their, and it isn't humans there, maybe it's just time to sit down and watch the history channel. We might see a story about us there some day. Okay, Mike, you watch TV. I go to contract work someplace on REAL space stuff, report back. :-) Those not be spaced-out brag tawks others have. Thirty. |
|
#114
June 30th 04, 06:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (Len Over 21) Date: 6/29/2004 5:06 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: (Len Over 21) Date: 6/28/2004 5:54 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/27/2004 8:36 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: It was the early 70's when Detroit and the others really started slipping. That was the era of the Gremlins, the Mavericks, Pintos and Vegas. Yep. The main reason was simple: Detroit hadn't made the necessary investment in basic R&D. They knew how to make big heavy inefficient cars but not small efficient ones. My point exactly, Jim. We need to move the technology of our space program out of the 70/80's. Why? Is science and exploration market-driven? I think not. [Docktor Weiner von Brawn personality of nursie acting up...] Lots of baby-babble deleted. Brits at Mars first, fail in landing. Unknown reason. No, the Brits were not first on Mars. Yanks next with bouncy balloon lander idea. Works. Both times. Yes, it did. But we had already soft-landed on Mars quite a while ago, Sir Putzy. And not with the "bouncy bloon lander idea". Tsk. Nursie make mean diss and cuss again. Not nice. "Bouncy balloon," nursie, not "bouncy bloon." Quit tawking baby tawk. :-) Brits first on Mars in 2003-2004 time frame. Uh huh. Got caught with your britches down (again) and now you change the parameters. Too late. JPL Viking Lander ...(SNIP) Another history lesson that we already knew...Thanks Lennie. Too late. I do REAL work on some space programs. Nursie do NONE. Nursie never at JPL, Santa Su, Michoud, Cape, Clear Lake. Nursie read "space comics" and be space guru? Must be. Nursie spaced out. From the personal background I gleaned on you from NADC, and "contributions" you made to "aerospace" were made on the days you didn't show up. That's why the name of Leonard H. Anderson does not bear any credibility...In this forum or any other. Nursie fruitcake. This not close to Christmas. Fruitcake not gift. Still waiting for your credentials in mental health. Also now awaiting your credentials in law for making the assertion that any referal I make would put me on a "legal roller coaster". Yet another venue you venture into without any experience, Lennie. In the meantime, we are still subjugated to your mistruths, antagonisms and overall misrepresentations of Amateur Radio...all in the name of "freedom of speech". Luckily for you, lying is protected speech. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#116
July 1st 04, 10:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/30/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: That's the root reason we decry the space program..."Let's spend the money on Earth!" But we're not doing it. Then if we're not spending the money now with no more than we're doing in space, how could this make it any worse? Because it diverts money, people, and attention away from solving those problems. Which gets priority - space or surface transportation? Why not both? The only difference here is that you're asking Joe Average to be ready to give up his/her SUV (or at least keep it garaged a lot more) and they don't want to do it. I've heard that same argument used to finish off Apollo. By Nixon... By COngress who pushed him to cancel it. We KO'd Apollo, yet schools are (in your estimation) no better off. That's not what I wrote. Not in those exact words, but that's what you have been saying. And NASA is manhandling those school board members to the ground and stealing the money from them? No, but the Feds hand out unfunded mandates that the schools must meet. How about this: Any Federal mandate must also carry with it funds to make them happen? Yes, they should carry the funds. But "unfunded federal mandates" are not what are causing the problems in ANY of the school districts around here. I don't think so. Besides, why should defeating gay marriage cost taxpayers any money at all? Indeed, why should it be defeated - if gay people can get 'married' (in the legal sense), they'll pay more taxes because of the income tax marriage penalty, thereby raising tax revenues. Why, indeed. BTW... A Lesbian and a gay man share an apartment...there's an explosion in the nighborhood and the fire department tells them to evacuate. Who get's out first? (Private e-mail for this asnwer, kids...) Say, there's the money for your expanded space program! Uh huh. It WAS a problem then. It's a worse one now. Yep. Because four presidents since then did not make it a priority. Because they weren't the one's without water to drink or bathe in, nor will the Predident's be without transportation. Things are NOT so fine now, but not yet to disaster proportions, but that light at the end of the tunnel is NOT salvation! It's the on-coming train! What *are* you talking about? Drought. Where? You have GOT to be KIDDING me, Jim...?!?! How about just about everything west of Little Rock and south of Seattle? Declining oil reserves. Yep. Internal security of our own borders. That's because we play the game at both ends. On the one hand, we say we want security. On the other hand, we want the cheap immigrant labor and the money tourists and students spend here. We can still have tighter security and keep those cotton-pickers and panty raiders coming, Jim... I wonder what they'd cost today to build? I wonder what the cost of the decaying cities will be when those cities can no longer sustain thier populations, and the people go elsewhere to live? Perhaps the bigger question is this: Why are so many people living in arid areas? Why do they expect to live as if they are not in a desert? Southern California wasn't that "arid" 50 years ago. We will force the building of NEW infrastructure wherever these people wind up, and the old cities will have to be refurbished somehow. That's because people do not connect their lifestyles with the environmental and resource costs. Yet "they" blame it on "them" (the government) for not "doing something" about it. Ultimately I think they will have to still build the plants that should ahve started in the 70's, and it will cost even more then. And who will pay? Who do you THINK will pay, Jim? You drink water? Like from 400MHZ to over 5GHZ. Enough RF on a single frquency desenses the front end. That's all it takes. I doubt that the military satellites are controlled on ONE discreet frequency, Jim. When was the last time a CNG tanker or railroad tank car exploded at all? Well, I still see the Manned Space Program as beiong over forty years old, and only 17 Americans have died in direct space flight operations or preparations. Out of how many that have flown? Hmmmmmm..... Six Mercury Flights: 6 Ten Gemini Flights: 20 (12 flights...Only 10 were manned) 17 Apollo flights: 51 Apollo Soyuz: 3 Skylab (3 msns) 9 Shuttle Missions: 560 (112 missions, average 5 persons per mission) _____ 649 (give or take a couple) Of course if you want to get REAL nit-picky, we can discount folks like Storey Musgrave and others who have flown more than one, so we'll just give you the benefit of the doubt here and say 640. That's less than 3 percent of the American manned space effort to date. That means that over 97 percent of all American manned space missions are successful. And that doesn't take into account the crews shuttled to and from MIR. The boosters for the Shuttle exploded once, we fixed that problem. Then another problem surfaced. Is it really fixed? This time it was FOD to the leading edges of the wings. Not the same...certainly not "over and over". Dead is dead. Two orbiters and their crews a total loss. Yes. Dead is dead. They were tragedies, and we learned from them. I do not consider thier sacrifices as a "total loss". "Total loss" meaning "no survivors and all equipment destroyed" NOT a total loss as in "lesson learned and not repeated". Do you know if we employed this pattern of "completely stop and re-engieer the problem" to the automobile, we wouldn't have over 50,000 a YEAR dead on our highwyas...And most of them weren't doing a THING worthy of thier deaths, Jim. I know. I see a lot of them. They never got there because they quit. They spent thier money elsewhere. It wasn't that they couldn't. They couldn't do it in time. And they STILL could have done it. Only money and "priorities" stopped them. Too bad. If they land ONE man on the Moon in the next decade, that will be one more than WE have done in the last forty years ! ! ! So? The moon isn't ours. The Gulf of Siddra isn't "ours" either yet we patrol it with a Carrier Battle Group regularly. You might ask why that is necessary. I may ask why it ISN'T important to advance manned space technology after all it's contributed to modern science. The differene with the Moon is that anyone who can get there can make use of what ever resources they find there. If it isn't us, it will be someone else. I would rather it BE us. Me too but until there is some resource worth getting, there are better things to spend the money and resources on. How do you know the resources aren't there until we get there and REALLY explore? So far all we did was a "pit stop", got a few trinkets and baubels and moved on. Then instead of tellingus what "can't" be done because of a lack of funding, tell us what CAN be done WITH adequate funding...And money spent SMARTLY, not just thrown into the pot and done with as you will..... I'm telling you what is practical and what isn't. Blank-check spending isn't practical. If we don't even explore the OPTIONS, Jim, how will we ever know what's practical? Other people dream of doing great things. Engineers do them. Engieneers do them when adequately funded! How much has SpaceShipOne cost? How far would SpaceShipOne have gotten if it wasn't bankrolled with $25M...?!?! How far DID it get? High altitude research balloons do the same thing a lot cheaper AND since the 1930's or 40's. DaVinci dreamed of a great many things that have only been made practical in the last 100 years...Because we spent the money on research to develop the materials to let the enginees make it happen! DaVinci sketched vague ideas. It took a lot of time, work and development to make real machines. Uh huh. The "Voyager" was a vague idea on a napkin. DaVinci's "vague ideas" were pretty detailed for the era. Imagine what he could ahve done had he had the materials with which to really do them. I am not "avoiding" anything Jim. You're avoiding saying how many more tax dollars you're willing to pay. That's the bottom line. People are all for all sorts of things until it comes time to pay for them. Then they scream bloody murder about being ripped off. I point blank said earlier that I didn't have all the answers. Then understand that you can't have everything you want for free. Who said free? I am willing to see my taxes spent on a practical space program! I just know that we are NOT doing ANYthing to move the program forward today. I disagree. The Mars rover missions are a great step forward. Cassini/Huygens is reaching Saturn - be prepared for a summer of wonders from the ringed planet. Pictures from a robot. The same information that we've gained on prior fly-by's and with terrestrial methods. The recent deployments only bear that out. They prove the technology is no damn good. It's a spectrum polluter. It's just plain stupid. They proved that THIS method is a spectrum polluter. The *concept* is just plain stupid. Did you see my post about the stormwater ditch? That's what BPL is electrically equivalent to. Can there NEVER be a development that might work? Depends what you mean by "work". The systems do "work" in the sense that they transmit data from A to B. The problem is that they leak RF all over the place because the power lines are simply leaky at RF frequencies. They radiate. It's basic physics. Wires with RF in them radiate, and long unshileded wires way up in the air with HF in them radiate really well. Various forms of coding and such simply don't fix the basic problem. Now if someone wants to install shielded power lines and equipment, a BPL system can work without interference. But such a system would cost more to build than simply running new coax or fiber. Yes, it will. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#117
July 1st 04, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/30/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: You're avoiding saying how many more tax dollars you're willing to pay. That's the bottom line. People are all for all sorts of things until it comes time to pay for them. Then they scream bloody murder about being ripped off. I point blank said earlier that I didn't have all the answers. Then understand that you can't have everything you want for free. From an AOL news link: (QUOTE) (IRT the Cassini Saturn mission) The orbital insertion came after two decades of work by scientists in the United States and 17 nations. The $3.3 billion mission was funded by NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency. (UNQUOTE) Which in English means the United States paid over $3B for this and Italy got some press as being involved in space exploration. No doubt in exchange for our continued use of Aviano. Cudda used THAT $3B right here on Earth too... OR...Cudda built two new shuttles with spares. OR...Cudda funded a LOT of lead-in research to a new lunar program, right ehre "in the neighborhood". Chances are unless we stumble on to warp drive, man will never get any closer to Saturn than those robots. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#118
July 1st 04, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/30/2004 7:13 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: You're avoiding saying how many more tax dollars you're willing to pay. That's the bottom line. People are all for all sorts of things until it comes time to pay for them. Then they scream bloody murder about being ripped off. I point blank said earlier that I didn't have all the answers. Then understand that you can't have everything you want for free. From an AOL news link: (QUOTE) (IRT the Cassini Saturn mission) The orbital insertion came after two decades of work by scientists in the United States and 17 nations. The $3.3 billion mission was funded by NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency. (UNQUOTE) Which in English means the United States paid over $3B for this and Italy got some press as being involved in space exploration. No doubt in exchange for our continued use of Aviano. The reality is quite different. All three agencies contributed money and resources. The result is a very sophisticated probe that will spend *years* studying the ringed planet. Cudda used THAT $3B right here on Earth too... Yep. OR...Cudda built two new shuttles with spares. When Challenger blew up, the quoted price I saw to replace the *just the lost hardware* was $2 billion. In 1986 dollars. Cassini/Huygens $3.3 billion is spread out over two decades. Comes to less about $150 million a year. OR...Cudda funded a LOT of lead-in research to a new lunar program, right ehre "in the neighborhood". Don't need research. Need development. Chances are unless we stumble on to warp drive, man will never get any closer to Saturn than those robots. Not true at all. Seems to me, Steve, that you're against unmanned probes like Cassini/Huygens and the Mars rovers, but *for* much more expensive manned missions - even though we stand to learn much more science from the unmanned probes. And the technology developed for the unmanned probes arguably has more application here on earth than that developed for manned flight. What's up with that? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#119
July 2nd 04, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: In the 50's and 60's we didn't have the technology. (to send people to the moon) We barely had the technology to get to the moon in the 70s. Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there about a decade earlier. History has shown us that most major "jumps" in technology and society happen in the wake of war. Some jumps, yes, but I don't know about "most". In many cases those "jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in peacetime. Or they're the result of government programs that are done to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy. In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits. RECENT history has shown that we made some pretty significant strides based on the Apollo program alone. Such as? Tang and Teflon existed before NASA. Ahh, but can you say the same for Tang flavored Teflon? There was anembarrassing moment when a '60s era astronaut swore he'd never drink the stuff ever again because of its GI tract effects on him. Trouble was he forgot he was on VOX... No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have to be reinvented. Couldn't build more Saturns, as the tooling is gone, as well as the supply path. So we'd have to rebuild the tooling and supply systems in order to build the rockets. Which could take longer than it did the first time. I wouldn't say reinvented, but it would need to be re-done. I suspect that a new moon mission would be much much different. I would guess in-orbit assembly for the propulsion system, possibly the ship. That was considered for Apollo, but it turns out the total rocket power needed is greater than sending an all-in-one mission. As enormous as Saturn Vs were, they were just adequate for the job. That's a good thing. For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask WHERE in space are you going to spend that money? We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people here. And address problems long-term. Well, that leaves the field wide open. Some would have us believe that we would be better to spend the money feeding the world's poor. Of course, then you end up with a lot of fat poor people that will continue eating your food until you run out, then you can starve along with 'em! 8^) Or the money could be spent teaching the world's poor how not to be poor. The old "give a man a fish" thing. A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of technical advencement. Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!" As opposed to the "Don't tax but spend like a drunken sailor" other types? Yep. Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of government spending". It was in the Nixon/Ford years that the big NASA cutbacks took place. Too much money, they said. There was supposed to be an Apollo 18 lunar mission - it was cut and the Saturn V for it became a museum piece. Literally. We found out we could make more money selling our hats to each other.... for a little while anyhoo. Meanwhile the hats were made elsewhere. And it wll worked up until people stopped wearing hats because nobody could afford them anymore. All of NASA's manned budget went into the shuttle, which is a marvelous system with a 1 in 75 chance of complete mission failure. The number of shuttles lost compared to the number of missions flown verifies the reliability analysis. The reason the USA made the big space commitments was because JFK and LBJ (guess what party) pushed for them. They were essentially done to compete with the Soviets for the "high ground" of space. Recall that practically all of the important early space firsts (first earth satellite, first animal in space, first human in space and in orbit, first woman in space, first mission to another heavenly body, first pictures of the far side of the Moon...) were done by the Soviet Union. And most of their early accomplishments were complete surprises in the West. The USA played catch-up for years. JFK and LBJ knew that if the Rooskies could orbit a man and bring him back safely, doing the same with a nuclear weapon would be a piece of cake for them. I know I'm in my post field day weird move, but I wonder which country posted the first bowel movement in space? Do you know about Alan Shepard's Mercury flight? Today there is no such need or competition. Just wait 5 years. More like 20 The cost was staggering but they had the political clout to do it. They could sell it to everyone on the national security agenda. And it didn't hurt that a lot of the money was spent in states like LBJ's own Texas. (Why is the control center for manned flights in Houston when the launch facility is in Florida?) Billions were spent on the space program in the '60s but when Americans needed quality fuel-efficient cars in the '70s they had to go to Germany and Japan for them. I think the recent events in the Mojave also show that a bit of entrepenurial spirit and investment can go a long way. As exciting as that effort is, all of it was done more than 35 years ago with the X-15. But that X-15 took a monumental effort and support structure. Not nearly so much as even the Mercury program. hat is the take away I get from the SpaceShipOne effort. By comparison, the Rutan effort is almost easy. I would not say "easy". And the SS1 effort has decades of experience and data behind it. X-15 did not. Did you see the pix of the technicians working on the plane? Jeans, T-Shirts and sneakers, and done in a workshop, not a humongous facility with cleanrooms and scary nasty chemicals sitting around. then they push it out of the "garage" hook it up to the White Knight and off they go. It's a bit more complicated than that... But if you read about the X-1, there are a lot of parallels. Despite the goal, I don't see the real lesson as getting to space, but the way they are doing it. So if they can do it for less money, and private money at that, why should we spend billions of tax dollars on it? And it was done without government funding. So why do we need NASA for manned flights at all? Let the private folks do it on a self-funded basis. So why not Mars? Because the cost and risk is simply too much for the benefits. Do you have any idea what a mission to Mars would require in terms of how big and complex the ship(s) would have to be, how long they'd be gone, and how completely on their own they would be? Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon. Apollo missions were no more than two weeks, Mars missions would be over a year long. The Martian surface is in some ways more hostile than the lunar surface and the landing physics much more difficult (Martian gravity is stronger). Look how many unmanned Mars missions have failed completely. Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars.... What benefits would a manned mission to Mars give that could not be had any other way? Ahh, now we are getting close to what I think you are trying to say. As much as I enjoy the martian rovers, and as excited as I get about their discoveries, and in general, all the wonderful things that we get from the unmanned side of space exploration, if the basic purpose isn't to put people somewhere - I don't support it. Why not? The machines can do things humans cannot. The cost is less. The machines can stay for a long time and don;t have to come back. AND, as we see from Hubble, they aren't taking care of the toys we are giving them now. Because the money isn't there. The Hubble deserves to live out it's full lifetime. At the end of it's useful life, it should be visited by a shuttle, packed up, and returned to earth to take an honored place in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum. Getting to see THAT would give me goosebumps and get me all excited. And what's more, it helps cement my support for all of this. The people at NASA should be concerned that ubergeeks like me don't support them at this time. It could also serve as a testbed for the effects of space on the hardware - all of it. How many meteorite holes, how much radiation damage, etc? Simulation is fine but imagine being able to study, in detail, something that spent years in space. Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take the risks and send it into space. Even though it was known that the optics were defective. It got there - it had problems. We considered it important enough to go back into space and repair it. That was a technological triumph by the way. It turned that ugly duckling into a a beautiful swan of optical imaging. They *knew* the lense wasn't right. Why it was launched is a classic case of "not my job". That lesson is a valuable one. We felt it was important enough to send servicing missions to. Now "we" don't any more. At one time, we were going to retrieve it, but now it is too "dangerous" to even do a maintenance run on it. Answer: Robots. My how we have changed. We aren't inspired. We demand that our explorers have the same safety factor as our automobiles. We are now pussies. I disagree. Yiur care is many orders of magnitude safer. More important, most car accidents are caused or exacerbated by human error. People not wearing seat belts, driving too fast, driving while impaired, etc. By comparison, the shuttle failures were caused by equipment troubles that the crew could do nothing about. If they told me that a servicing or retrieval mission to the shuttle wouldn't take place unless I was on board, I'd be on my way down there right now. Me too but that's not going to happen. And how much all of it would cost? I think there is a psychological and social cost to *not* do it. Such as? Is it worse than becoming more and more dependent on imports? Why not research stations on the Moon? How much are *you* willing to pay for them in tax dollars? That's really the bottom line. People are all for space exploration and such until the bills for it show up. Unless you want to ressurect the "world is flat" or the "we never went to the Moon" conspiracies, what other legit reasons can you think of to NOT do it? Simple: The costs outweigh the benefits. There are easier, cheaper, faster ways to get the benefits and solve the problems we have on earth. Actually, I don't think there is a way to solve those problems. The ones on earth? I disagree! I'm old enough to remember when the phrase "reaching for the moon" meant someone was trying to do that which could not be done. Yet it was done. There was a time when it was seriously argued that some men had to be enslaved, either literally or economically, because nobody would voluntarily do those jobs. That problem was solved There was a time when it was seriously argued that women could not be allowed to vote because it would cause all kinds of problems. Turned out not to bve a problem. There was a time when it was considered impossible to teach most children to read and write because their work was 'needed' in the farms, mills and factories. Space and war may help with some things but they are horribly inefficient means of progress. None of this means we shouldn't go into space, just that we need to do so in a way that is balanced with other needs and programs. Ahh, but whose balance, Jim? Mine. ;-) I think that humankind badly NEEDS the sense of exploration and adventure and the frontier effect of space. My price tag of balance is a lot higher than yours, which is in turn a lot higher than a lot of other people's Of course. But when space exploration is used as a way of distracting people from solvable earth problems, that's not a good thing. If we're not their, and it isn't humans there, maybe it's just time to sit down and watch the history channel. We might see a story about us there some day. What's all the rush? Space has been there for a lot longer than we have, and will be there long after we are gone. We can take our time and do it in a planned way, or rush headlong and wastefully, and accomplish little. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#120
July 2nd 04, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 7/1/2004 6:32 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: Ahh, but can you say the same for Tang flavored Teflon? There was anembarrassing moment when a '60s era astronaut swore he'd never drink the stuff ever again because of its GI tract effects on him. Trouble was he forgot he was on VOX... I couldn't blame him...I thought (think) the stuff sucks. Couldn't build more Saturns, as the tooling is gone, as well as the supply path. So we'd have to rebuild the tooling and supply systems in order to build the rockets. Which could take longer than it did the first time. I'd certainly hope that engineering skills and contruction methodology hadn't REGRESSED in the last four decades! =) Who's running this thing, anyway? Ex-Army radio clerks ? As enormous as Saturn Vs were, they were just adequate for the job. That's a good thing. If you get even one pound more of thrust MORE than what you "need", then that's ALL you Well, that leaves the field wide open. Some would have us believe that we would be better to spend the money feeding the world's poor. Of course, then you end up with a lot of fat poor people that will continue eating your food until you run out, then you can starve along with 'em! 8^) Or the money could be spent teaching the world's poor how not to be poor. The old "give a man a fish" thing. That ain't a happening thng. You know what I was so "impressed" with while overseas doing the things Lennie says I didn't do...?!?! There were American "missionaries" trying to impose thier religion and moral values on people supposedly too poor to eat or even buy a Bible...(you see thier kids on "Feed The Children" commercials... BUT...They always seemed to have money to buy AK47's and ammunition. Go figure... Today there is no such need or competition. Just wait 5 years. More like 20 The last years of the Soviet system were examples of what happens to a society wherein competion and individual initiative are stripped from people. The Russians found out the hard way. The Chinese learned, but they also learned how to keep people repressed and doing what they want them to do. That is the take away I get from the SpaceShipOne effort. By comparison, the Rutan effort is almost easy. I would not say "easy". And the SS1 effort has decades of experience and data behind it. X-15 did not. Exactly. And "composites"...And computing power 1000 fold greater than what Apollo had... So if they can do it for less money, and private money at that, why should we spend billions of tax dollars on it? "SpaceShip" 1 barely went suborbital. It will take a LOT more investment capital before we see any of Burt's stuff on orbit! Ahh, now we are getting close to what I think you are trying to say. As much as I enjoy the martian rovers, and as excited as I get about their discoveries, and in general, all the wonderful things that we get from the unmanned side of space exploration, if the basic purpose isn't to put people somewhere - I don't support it. Why not? The machines can do things humans cannot. The cost is less. The machines can stay for a long time and don;t have to come back. The machines can't fix them selves enroute or on-site. I am willing to bet that the Brit's "Beagle 2" mission burnt up on entering the Martian atmosphere. Maybe had it been a manned mission, the 1/10th of a degree attitude adjustment necessary to PREVENT it could have been made. AND, as we see from Hubble, they aren't taking care of the toys we are giving them now. Because the money isn't there. The Hubble deserves to live out it's full lifetime. At the end of it's useful life, it should be visited by a shuttle, packed up, and returned to earth to take an honored place in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum. Getting to see THAT would give me goosebumps and get me all excited. And what's more, it helps cement my support for all of this. The people at NASA should be concerned that ubergeeks like me don't support them at this time. It could also serve as a testbed for the effects of space on the hardware - all of it. How many meteorite holes, how much radiation damage, etc? Simulation is fine but imagine being able to study, in detail, something that spent years in space. How many other massive spaceborne telescopes have we had on orbit? These things also serve as testbeds. We tend to think of the space program as being "old" since were in our 3rd generation with it. It's not. It's still well within "infancy" I think we are so confused between our fantasy perception of space travel (ie: Star Trek et al, Babylon 5, etc) and the reality (barely crawling at this point) that we have these grossly overinflated ideas of how these systems OUGHT to "last" or "work". Once upon a time, we built the thing. It was important enough to take the risks and send it into space. Even though it was known that the optics were defective. But they were able to compensate for that. It got there - it had problems. We considered it important enough to go back into space and repair it. That was a technological triumph by the way. It turned that ugly duckling into a a beautiful swan of optical imaging. They *knew* the lense wasn't right. Why it was launched is a classic case of "not my job". That lesson is a valuable one. We felt it was important enough to send servicing missions to. Now "we" don't any more. At one time, we were going to retrieve it, but now it is too "dangerous" to even do a maintenance run on it. Answer: Robots. How does man learn to do these things in space if we send machines to try and do it? And how do we "teach" a machine to do something if we ourselves don't already know how it should be done? More important, most car accidents are caused or exacerbated by human error. People not wearing seat belts, driving too fast, driving while impaired, etc. By comparison, the shuttle failures were caused by equipment troubles that the crew could do nothing about. Oh? They were engineering errors if we patently accept the investigation's reports. The errors were due to a failure of the people making the decisons. Thiokol said "go" after being coerced by NASA people to let Challenger fly. Coerced by men...not robots. Boom. There had been issues raised over the foam on the external tank being able to come loose, but again cooler heads didn't get a chance to prevail. One "suggestion" that had been laid out years ago was that a "once-over" EVA be done to the Shuttle prior to re-entry in order to make sure no external damage was done. It was suggested that thios would place the crew at too much risk. The idea of a small "ROV" be built for the same purpose was made.. "Too much time and money". I'll bet a bunch of MIT kids could have designed the thing as a class project for less than a mil...Compare that against the loss we suffered. Actually, I don't think there is a way to solve those problems. The ones on earth? I disagree! Me too. I was once told that there are not really any "problems"...Just solutions awaiting implementation! I'm old enough to remember when the phrase "reaching for the moon" meant someone was trying to do that which could not be done. Yet it was done. Yep. I believe we will one day find outr how to go light speed or better. It's just a matter of time, money and effort. There was a time when it was seriously argued that some men had to be enslaved, either literally or economically, because nobody would voluntarily do those jobs. That problem was solved. Yep..We just look the other way at the border once in a while! =) There was a time when it was seriously argued that women could not be allowed to vote because it would cause all kinds of problems. Turned out not to be a problem. That's a matter of opinion. Several political pundits have said that a lot of the "vote" that went to Bill Clinton did so because some segment of women voters thought he was more handsome than President Bush, and thought that his rhetoric on women's "issues" was "sweet". There was a time when it was considered impossible to teach most children to read and write because their work was 'needed' in the farms, mills and factories. Obviously it's still true. A very large part of our imports from India and Pakistan are made by kids. If we're not their, and it isn't humans there, maybe it's just time to sit down and watch the history channel. We might see a story about us there some day. What's all the rush? Space has been there for a lot longer than we have, and will be there long after we are gone. We can take our time and do it in a planned way, or rush headlong and wastefully, and accomplish little. Yes...it will still be there...but I for one am very disappointed that after four decades of manned space travel, we still haven't done a darned thing to REALLY start exploring "space"...! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
